D&D General D&D Red Box: Who Is The Warrior?

The Dungeons & Dragons Red Box, famously illustrated by Larry Elmore in 1983, featured cover art of a warrior fighting a red dragon. The piece is an iconic part of D&D's history.

WizKids is creating a 50th Anniversary D&D miniatures set for the D&D Icons of the Realms line which includes models based on classic art from the game, such as the AD&D Player's Handbook's famous 'A Paladin In Hell' piece by David Sutherland in 1978, along with various monsters and other iconic images. The set will be available in July 2024.

Amongst the collection is Elmore's dragon-fighting warrior. This character has only ever been seen from behind, and has never been named or identified. However, WizKids’ miniature gives us our first look at them from the front. The warrior is a woman; the view from behind is identical to the original art, while the view from the front--the first time the character's face has ever been seen--is, as WizKids told ComicBook.com, "purposefully and clearly" a woman. This will be one of 10 secret rare miniatures included in the D&D Icons of the Realms: 50th Anniversary booster boxes.

The original artist, Larry Elmore, says otherwise. (Update—the linked post has since been edited).

It's a man!

Gary didn't know what he wanted, all he wanted was something simple that would jump out at you. He wanted a male warrior. If it was a woman, you would know it for I'm pretty famous for painting women.

There was never a question in all these years about the male warrior.

No one thought it was a female warrior. "Whoever thought it was a female warrior is quite crazy and do not know what they are talking about."

This is stupid. I painted it, I should know.

- Larry Elmore​

Whether or not Elmore's intent was for the character to be a man, it seems that officially she's a woman. Either way, it's an awesome miniature. And for those who love the art, you can buy a print from Larry Elmore's official website.

 

[Whizbang Dustyboots]

If we go by your logic, then there have been maybe five fictional stories written about throughout all of history.

This is an argument that academics periodically make with a straight face and, depending on their preference, either credit the Bible for everything or the Greeks.

 

[Clint_L]

C'mon, you know better. All of his plays were original. If we go by your logic, then there have been maybe five fictional stories written about throughout all of history. "Fiction is a road well-travelled," is the saying. But what needs to be added is, "But its side-streets are endless."

I’m not sure how you are defining “original.” But if they were films, all of them but those two would be up for the “adapted” screenplay, because they were. Tempest and Midsummer are the only two with original plots. Mostly. All the rest were derived from other, known, sources (or several) and many of them had already been plays, sometimes in multiple versions.

This is not a criticism of Shakespeare. It’s how theatre worked back then.

 

[Scott Christian]

M

I’m not sure how you are defining “original.” But if they were films, all of them but those two would be up for the “adapted” screenplay, because they were. Tempest and Midsummer are the only two with original plots. Mostly. All the rest were derived from other, known, sources (or several) and many of them had already been plays, sometimes in multiple versions.

This is not a criticism of Shakespeare. It’s how theatre worked back then.

My point is that is how all theater works. Edward II by Christopher Marlowe, The Alchemist by Ben Johnson, and heck, even West Side Story are all side streets of Romeo & Juliet. Which of course was a side street of the poem by Brooke. So if Romeo and Juliet are not "original," neither was West Side Story or the other hundred plays about forbidden young love.

I believe it is a silly argument to make that something is not original, when clearly the work has added to it enough to make it new. Pride and Prejudice and Zombies was a hit. And guess what, it was considered original.

This is an argument that academics periodically make with a straight face and, depending on their preference, either credit the Bible for everything or the Greeks.

I made no such argument. I made the argument that Romeo and Juliet (and other works by Shakespeare) were "original." I stated that if we said they weren't, then we would also discount all the other works that created similar storylines. And therefore, by conclusion, we would probably only have five stories throughout all of history. (A bit hyperbolic, but it gets the point across.) So I believe you misread what I was saying.

 

[Clint_L]

M

My point is that is how all theater works. Edward II by Christopher Marlowe, The Alchemist by Ben Johnson, and heck, even West Side Story are all side streets of Romeo & Juliet. Which of course was a side street of the poem by Brooke. So if Romeo and Juliet are not "original," neither was West Side Story or the other hundred plays about forbidden young love.

I believe it is a silly argument to make that something is not original, when clearly the work has added to it enough to make it new. Pride and Prejudice and Zombies was a hit. And guess what, it was considered original.

I made no such argument. I made the argument that Romeo and Juliet (and other works by Shakespeare) were "original." I stated that if we said they weren't, then we would also discount all the other works that created similar storylines. And therefore, by conclusion, we would probably only have five stories throughout all of history. (A bit hyperbolic, but it gets the point across.) So I believe you misread what I was saying.

I think every Shakespeare scholar knows and agrees with how I used the term; this was not some insight of mine but a well known fact. And they use it the same way in the context of Shakespeare only having two plays that are largely original to him. If you prefer a different word that makes you more comfortable while communicating the core idea, which, again, Shakespeare scholars find significant, then you do you. I’m going to stick with the normal usage.

I also think the authors that you cite would be the first to acknowledge their sources. And I think all of us understand the difference between Pride and Prejudice vs Pride and Prejudice and Zombies.